R v LAM [2003] NSWCCA 162

R v LAM [2003] NSWCCA 162

The sentencing judge failed to implement the stated discount for the applicant's guilty pleas and subjective matters when imposing the head sentences. After correcting that error, the applicant still had a justifiable sense of grievance because his father, who was more seriously involved and had a prior similar conviction and parole breaches, received a head sentence of ten years. A parity adjustment was warranted but could not produce an inadequate sentence. Taking account of the applicant's conduct in custody and prospects of rehabilitation, a shorter non-parole period was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences quashed; applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['drug Offences' 'possession of a Prohibited Import' 'plea of Guilty' 'parity With Co Offenders' 'non Parole Period' 'federal Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['drug Offences' 'possession of a Prohibited Import' 'plea of Guilty' 'parity With Co Offenders' 'non Parole Period' 'federal Offences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's plea of guilty and subjective case when setting the head sentences." 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance by virtue of disparity between his sentences and those imposed on co-offenders.' 'What non-parole period should be fixed after re-sentencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge failed to implement the stated discount for the applicant's guilty pleas and subjective matters when imposing the head sentences. After correcting that error, the applicant still had a justifiable sense of grievance because his father, who was more seriously involved and had a prior similar conviction and parole breaches, received a head sentence of ten years. A parity adjustment was warranted but could not produce an inadequate sentence. Taking account of the applicant's conduct in custody and prospects of rehabilitation, a shorter non-parole period was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences quashed; applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the sentences imposed by his Honour Judge Taylor on 20 September 2002.' 'In lieu thereof, sentence the applicant for the first offence to a term of nine years imprisonment and for the second offence a term of seven years imprisonment to be served concurrently and to...